adrien.futschik@atosorigin.com wrote:
> I Think I found the problem.
>
> I have to confirm this, but the "olcSpSessionlog" parameter doesn't seem
> to
be necessary.
> I made a mistake in my configuration. I used "refreshOnly" mode for the
backend and with "refreshOnly", consumer isn't aware when a provider deletes
an entry. So I understood at least.
No. Replication is supposed to work regardless of mode, refreshOnly /
refreshAndPersist should yield identical results.
> Here is a extract from the documentation about syncrepl : "Also as a
> consequence of the search filter used in the syncrepl
specification, it is possible for a modification to remove an entry from the
replication scope even though the entry has not been deleted on the provider.
Logically the entry must be deleted on the consumer but in refreshOnly mode
the provider cannot detect and propagate this change without the use of the
session log."
The above text is correct, but it is talking about partial replication where
the syncrepl search filter causes only a subset of the entries to be
replicated. That does not apply to your case because you haven't set any
special filter in your syncrepl config.
> So I guess this was not a bug, but a mistake in the documentation :
> http://www.openldap.org/doc/admin24/replication.html#N-Way%20Multi-Master
>
> Can anyone confirm ?
There is still a bug here.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/